User talk:TBM10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Tbmurray)
Jump to: navigation, search

Detailed tables of services for stations[edit]

Hi, I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Detailed tables of services for stations which directly concerns your recent edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

List of British police officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

It's being reported than an off-duty GMP officer was killed in the Manchester Arena bombing. I've started a thread on the list discussion page about whether to include her or not, and would appreciate your input. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Two questions[edit]

Yes. Firstly, where are you finding the mileage information for your changes to chains in articles. Secondly, again, what does this "downline" business add? Is it further the other way? Britmax (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; for example, your edit to Braintree. My copy of
  • Padgett, David (October 2016) [1988]. Brailsford, Martyn, ed. Railway Track Diagrams 2: Eastern (4th ed.). Frome: Trackmaps. map 5D. ISBN 978-0-9549866-8-1. 
gives the mileage of Braintree as 17 miles 71 chains - this is measured from Bishop's Stortford. It gives the junction at Witham as 24 miles 15 chains from Bishop's Stortford, and 38 miles 55 chains from Liverpool Street, giving (this is a WP:NOR violation) a distance of 44 miles 79 chains from Liverpool Street. This agrees with the previous version, but not with yours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
From Real Time Trains, which I presumed had the most up to date measurements. Examples here [1] and here [2] --TBM10 (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

PROD tags on articles of listed London pubs[edit]

Why have you re-added the PROD tags? Did you not read WP:GEOFEAT, namely, "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable."

Also, the tag itself generates the following at the top of the article, "Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it."

Please stop this WP:Edit warring immediately. Edwardx (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pubs are not artificial geographical features, they are buildings, and the policy states that "they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." --TBM10 (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
That is a perverse interpretation - "buildings" form a sub-set of "artificial geographical features". Edwardx (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Why does the policy differentiate between the two, then? --TBM10 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't as such. The second bullet point simply provides an alternative path to notability for buildings that have not been "officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level". The policy is really quite clear. And please stop replacing the PROD tags - this is disruptive behaviour and edit warring, and is liable to end up with you being blocked. Edwardx (talk)
As for my removing reinstated PROD tags, I'm not dictating anything, simply following longstanding well-established policy. Edwardx (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You are edit-warring and acting like a dictator by removing the tags. You created the articles and are therefore biased, as demonstrated by choosing the policy that suits you rather than the more obvious policy relating to the notability of "buildings". Perhaps you should find someone else who agrees with you that a pub is an "artificial geographical feature" rather than a "building". --TBM10 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
They are notable not only as buildings but as cultural and geographical artifacts in the United Kingdom. Ample critical discussion supports this. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:DEPROD is clear: the article's creator may remove a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag; it's also clear that once such a tag has been removed, it must not be re-added except under a very few special circumstances. Consider Old Doctor Butler's Head: since Edwardx did not blank the page, was not committing vandalism, and is not under a topic ban, then the two reverts by TBM10 were both improper. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)